Gujarat High Court
Jay Suketubhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 19 February, 2016
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/45/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 45 of 2016
==========================================================
JAY SUKETUBHAI DESAI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.DIPAK B PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, ASSTT GOVT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 19/02/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. On finding that there was breach of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Act') and Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code ('the Code'), the Collector passed order dated 10.12.2014 against the petitioner and the original owners (tribal) for vesting of the land with the Government and for imposing penalty of Rs.19,09,500/- to the petitioner. This order of the Collector is challenged by the petitioner before the Secretary by preferring Revision Application No.3 of 2015, wherein the petitioner applied for interim stay which is refused by the Secretary, against which present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioner submitted that before the Collector could make order for vesting of the land and for imposing penalty, the land was already restored to the original owners. Mr. Patel submitted that in fact, the land was never taken possession from the original owners and there was agreement only on papers to run the hotel on the land which otherwise the original Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:15:43 IST 2016 C/SCA/45/2016 ORDER owners were not in a position to run. Mr. Patel submitted that the petitioner is not interested to challenge the order as regards vesting the land with the Government but, penalty imposed upon him is harsh in nature and considering the agreement between the parties to restore the land, this Court may interfere with the impugned order.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Raval submitted that the Collector has recorded specific finding that the land was transferred by lease agreement in favour of the petitioner and there was clear breach of Section 73AA of the Code. Mr. Raval submitted that imposition of penalty is in consonance with the provisions of Section 73AA and therefore, the Secretary has committed no error in refusing to grant interim stay in favour of the petitioner.
4. The Court having heard learned advocates for the parties finds that the Collector has recorded finding that by lease agreement in favour of the petitioner, breach of Section 73AA was committed. Based on such finding, the Collector ordered to vest the land with the State Government and also imposed penalty as stated above upon the petitioner.
5. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Collector was not empowered or authorized to impose penalty upon the petitioner. In fact, considering the provisions of Section 73AA of the Code and intention behind introducing such provisions to protect the interest of tribal, the Collector is well empowered to impose such penalty on finding that the transaction is in breach of the provisions of Section 73AA of the Code.
6. In above such view of the matter, the Court finds that the Secretary has committed no error in refusing to grant interim relief to the petitioner. The petition is therefore, rejected. It will be however open to the petitioner to deposit the amount of penalty as ordered by Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:15:43 IST 2016 C/SCA/45/2016 ORDER the Collector which may be subject to ultimate result of the revision application preferred by the petitioner. It is observed at the instance of learned advocate Mr. Patel that the present order is just to decide the question about interim relief pending the revision application and the observations made in the present order shall not influence the Secretary while deciding the revision application.
Sd/-
(C.L.SONI, J.) Omkar Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:15:43 IST 2016